Ocala council members prepare to polish city’s charter

Published: Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 11:29 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 11:29 p.m.

The city of Ocala’s charter, which some liken to a city constitution, is getting a dusting and polishing.

Some of the changes being considered by the City Council will wind up on the Oct. 15 ballot giving city voters the final word.

City officials say that over the years some charter provisions have become obsolete or have been superseded by state law or dealt with in the city’s code of ordinances. Other provisions are murky and difficult to interpret.

For instance, when the city learned in 2011 that Councilman John O. Priester did not live in the district he represented, and did not live there when he ran for office, the city’s attorneys ran to the charter for guidance and found the residency requirements were not clear. Ultimately, the City Council voted to dismiss Priester, which kicked off a lengthy and costly process of elections and runoffs to fill the position. It was even found that, according to the charter, the whole process might have had to have been repeated, at the cost of additional time and money, had certain candidates decided to withdraw from the race.

That upheaval is one reason the council decided the charter needed to be reviewed.

According to Assistant City Attorney W. James Gooding III, the structure and operation of city government as laid out in the charter — such as terms of office and powers of elected officials — will not change. He said most of the changes being drafted are intended to “clean up” the charter.

The city’s original charter was adopted in 1885 and has been amended a number of times. The last time the charter was amended was in 1977, according to Deputy City Clerk Roseann Fusco.

In some cases, the City Council can change the charter simply by passing an ordinance. Other changes need voter approval.

Gooding said the Florida Legislature made those distinctions when it approved the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, which gives cities and counties the ability, with certain limitations and requirements, to set up their own system of governance and ordinances.

“I would assume that these things were so important or dealt with such basic provisions of the charter that they wanted the people to weigh in on them,” Gooding said about the charter changes that require a vote of the people.

Voters will be asked to cast their votes on individual ordinances addressing the changes.

Elections

Changes to election rules are among the items that voters must endorse.

One change would require council members to reside in their districts, which clears up the ambiguity that surrounded Priester’s misstep.

And, unlike regular elections, special elections, if approved by the council, will no longer have runoff elections. The candidate who wins a plurality in a special election will be elected.

The special election runoff that occurred after Priester left office cost the city $55,000 on top of the $55,000 that was spent for the special election itself.

Brian Creekbaum, a government watchdog citizen, opposes the idea of doing away with special election runoffs.

“Based on my research of runoff elections in Ocala, eliminating the runoff would have changed the selection in nearly half of the cases,” Creekbaum said. “We need runoffs in regular elections and special elections so we are governed by the people we want to govern us.”

Another proposed change stipulates that runoff elections may be allowed to give the Supervisor of Elections time to send absentee ballots to military and overseas voters.

Priester’s vacant seat caused a number of problems. Some issues, that came before the council, were killed because there was no one to break the 2-2 tie vote. To avoid that, a charter amendment being proposed would allow the mayor to vote if there is a City Council vacancy.

However, the mayor would not be allowed to vote on ordinances that he vetoes.

Under the charter, the mayor has the power to veto ordinances passed by the council, but the council can override the veto by a 4-5 vote. However, the charter currently has no time frame for the council’s vote. A change is being proposed that gives the council 120 days to override the mayor’s veto.

And, should the mayor’s position become vacant, a proposed change would allow the City Council president to carry out the mayor’s duties until the position is filled, and that includes the authority to veto ordinances.

Another charter change allows the city to cancel an election if a candidate dies, withdraws or is disqualified and only one qualified candidate remains.

Other referendum provisions

And if that is not enough to keep voters in the ballot booth for a while, there are a few other changes that need their consideration. Most are “housekeeping” items, like removing from the charter the need for a planning and zoning director, a planning and zoning board and a board of appeals. Those items are provided for in the city’s code of ordinances and should not be in the charter, Gooding said. It also would remove the need for a council-appointed public affairs officer, which should be hired by the city manager.

Right now, the mayor, as head of the police department, is responsible for enforcing all city ordinances other than those surrounding public utilities. A proposed amendment to the charter also would remove ordinances that are the responsibility of other city departments or boards, such as Code Enforcement. The mayor and police would be responsible for enforcing all the other ordinances.

“We’re not taking his power away,” Gooding said. “Instead, we are making the language conform to reality that says the police department no longer enforces all local ordinances.”

He said it would be “inefficient and probably too expensive,” to have police officers chasing down people, for instance, whose lawns are overgrown.

Voters will have a say in that, and also about removing the Downtown Development Commission provision. Because the City Council already has disbanded the Downtown Development Commission and has assumed responsibility for its budget, there is no need to have the DDC in the charter.

Council approval only

Among the provisions that do not require voter approval and that could be changed in May by an ordinance approved by the City Council are four entire articles that are ensconced in city code or state law: financial procedures, bond issuance, operating a hospital and a minimum housing code.

There are other “housekeeping” rules of items now obsolete, covered by state law or in city codes.

The council is expected to consider the changes at the May 21 meeting, which begins at 4 p.m. in council chambers on the second floor of City Hall, 110 SE Watula Ave., Ocala.

<p>The city of Ocala's charter, which some liken to a city constitution, is getting a dusting and polishing.</p><p>Some of the changes being considered by the City Council will wind up on the Oct. 15 ballot giving city voters the final word.</p><p>City officials say that over the years some charter provisions have become obsolete or have been superseded by state law or dealt with in the city's code of ordinances. Other provisions are murky and difficult to interpret.</p><p>For instance, when the city learned in 2011 that Councilman John O. Priester did not live in the district he represented, and did not live there when he ran for office, the city's attorneys ran to the charter for guidance and found the residency requirements were not clear. Ultimately, the City Council voted to dismiss Priester, which kicked off a lengthy and costly process of elections and runoffs to fill the position. It was even found that, according to the charter, the whole process might have had to have been repeated, at the cost of additional time and money, had certain candidates decided to withdraw from the race.</p><p>That upheaval is one reason the council decided the charter needed to be reviewed.</p><p>According to Assistant City Attorney W. James Gooding III, the structure and operation of city government as laid out in the charter — such as terms of office and powers of elected officials — will not change. He said most of the changes being drafted are intended to “clean up” the charter.</p><p>The city's original charter was adopted in 1885 and has been amended a number of times. The last time the charter was amended was in 1977, according to Deputy City Clerk Roseann Fusco.</p><p>In some cases, the City Council can change the charter simply by passing an ordinance. Other changes need voter approval. </p><p>Gooding said the Florida Legislature made those distinctions when it approved the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, which gives cities and counties the ability, with certain limitations and requirements, to set up their own system of governance and ordinances.</p><p>“I would assume that these things were so important or dealt with such basic provisions of the charter that they wanted the people to weigh in on them,” Gooding said about the charter changes that require a vote of the people.</p><p>Voters will be asked to cast their votes on individual ordinances addressing the changes.</p><p>Elections</p><p>Changes to election rules are among the items that voters must endorse.</p><p>One change would require council members to reside in their districts, which clears up the ambiguity that surrounded Priester's misstep.</p><p>And, unlike regular elections, special elections, if approved by the council, will no longer have runoff elections. The candidate who wins a plurality in a special election will be elected.</p><p>The special election runoff that occurred after Priester left office cost the city $55,000 on top of the $55,000 that was spent for the special election itself.</p><p>Brian Creekbaum, a government watchdog citizen, opposes the idea of doing away with special election runoffs.</p><p>“Based on my research of runoff elections in Ocala, eliminating the runoff would have changed the selection in nearly half of the cases,” Creekbaum said. “We need runoffs in regular elections and special elections so we are governed by the people we want to govern us.”</p><p>Another proposed change stipulates that runoff elections may be allowed to give the Supervisor of Elections time to send absentee ballots to military and overseas voters.</p><p>Priester's vacant seat caused a number of problems. Some issues, that came before the council, were killed because there was no one to break the 2-2 tie vote. To avoid that, a charter amendment being proposed would allow the mayor to vote if there is a City Council vacancy. </p><p>However, the mayor would not be allowed to vote on ordinances that he vetoes.</p><p>Under the charter, the mayor has the power to veto ordinances passed by the council, but the council can override the veto by a 4-5 vote. However, the charter currently has no time frame for the council's vote. A change is being proposed that gives the council 120 days to override the mayor's veto.</p><p>And, should the mayor's position become vacant, a proposed change would allow the City Council president to carry out the mayor's duties until the position is filled, and that includes the authority to veto ordinances.</p><p>Another charter change allows the city to cancel an election if a candidate dies, withdraws or is disqualified and only one qualified candidate remains. </p><p>Other referendum provisions</p><p>And if that is not enough to keep voters in the ballot booth for a while, there are a few other changes that need their consideration. Most are “housekeeping” items, like removing from the charter the need for a planning and zoning director, a planning and zoning board and a board of appeals. Those items are provided for in the city's code of ordinances and should not be in the charter, Gooding said. It also would remove the need for a council-appointed public affairs officer, which should be hired by the city manager.</p><p>Right now, the mayor, as head of the police department, is responsible for enforcing all city ordinances other than those surrounding public utilities. A proposed amendment to the charter also would remove ordinances that are the responsibility of other city departments or boards, such as Code Enforcement. The mayor and police would be responsible for enforcing all the other ordinances.</p><p>“We're not taking his power away,” Gooding said. “Instead, we are making the language conform to reality that says the police department no longer enforces all local ordinances.”</p><p>He said it would be “inefficient and probably too expensive,” to have police officers chasing down people, for instance, whose lawns are overgrown.</p><p>Voters will have a say in that, and also about removing the Downtown Development Commission provision. Because the City Council already has disbanded the Downtown Development Commission and has assumed responsibility for its budget, there is no need to have the DDC in the charter.</p><p>Council approval only</p><p>Among the provisions that do not require voter approval and that could be changed in May by an ordinance approved by the City Council are four entire articles that are ensconced in city code or state law: financial procedures, bond issuance, operating a hospital and a minimum housing code.</p><p>There are other “housekeeping” rules of items now obsolete, covered by state law or in city codes.</p><p>The council is expected to consider the changes at the May 21 meeting, which begins at 4 p.m. in council chambers on the second floor of City Hall, 110 SE Watula Ave., Ocala.</p><p><i>Contact Susan Latham Carr at 867-4156 or susan.carr@starbanner.com.</i></p>